Where is The Bar Association

By:  ghostly-bear  •  3 months ago  •  114 comments

Where is The Bar Association

I would like to know why the bar association doesn't step in and revoke law license on rouge prosecutors. Manaford looking at 300 years were the average person only gets 1.5 years. This is injustice at its finest. If the dosser is proven to be a fraud in court than Manaford trial will be thrown out. Its. fruit of the poisonous tree

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
ghostly bear
1  author  ghostly bear    3 months ago

There is no checks and balances on a rogue criminal justice that will bankrupt you. Many of our citizens have taken plea deals to avoid financial ruin. Don't you think a prosecutor office should reimburse you 2 1/2 times

 
 
WallyW
1.1  WallyW  replied to  ghostly bear @1    2 months ago

The dossier has been show to be a collection of non facts. It has never been vetted and proven to be true. The whole scandalous Mueller investigation is based on this fabrication. Whoever is wrongly convicted by this witch hunt will be pardoned by Trump. It's the right and proper thing to do.

 
 
Split Personality
1.2  Split Personality  replied to  ghostly bear @1    2 months ago
  • Attempt to evade or defeat paying taxes: Upon conviction, the taxpayer is guilty of a felony and is subject to other penalties allowed by law, in addition to (1) imprisonment for no more than 5 years, (2) a fine of not more than $250,000 for individuals or $500,000 for corporations, or (3) both penalties, plus the cost of prosecution (26 USC 7201).
  • Fraud and false statements: Upon conviction, the taxpayer is guilty of a felony and is subject to (1) imprisonment for no more than 3 years, (2) a fine of not more than $250,000 for individuals or $500,000 for corporations, or (3) both penalties, plus the cost of prosecution (26 USC 7206(1)).
  • Willful failure to file a return, supply information, or pay tax at the time or times required by law. This includes the failure to pay estimated tax or a final tax, and the failure to make a return, keep records, or supply information. Upon conviction, the taxpayer is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to other penalties allowed by law, in addition to (1) imprisonment for no more than 1 year, (2) a fine of not more than $100,000 for individuals or $200,000 for corporations, or (3) both penalties, plus the cost of prosecution (26 USC 7203).

https://tax.findlaw.com/tax-problems-audits/income-tax-fraud-vs-negligence.html

The average felony bank fraud conviction is 10 years per count.

If you are a fan of Paul Manafort, you have our condolences.
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @1.2    2 months ago

So according to your calculations, we are talking a few decades behind bars more or less. Where does the 300 years come from?

Also please explain a house raid at dawn and solitary confinement before a trial for procedure crimes.

Al Capone only got 11 years for income tax evasion. 

 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    2 months ago

Evening Vic.....

My understanding of the potential time is they have the legal authority to impose sentence for EACH incidence of a crime, even if being tried together.   Someone one one show had a 'chalk board' which he used to add everything up.   Plus they have the ability to impose sentence consecutively instead of concurrently (as is usually the norm).

As to the raid....   THAT is a good question.

However, as to his being jailed pre-trial, purportedly that is in response to what the prosecution claimed was witness tampering by his contacting former partners, etc.

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.2    2 months ago

Thanks, my friend.

What do you think of the trial itself?

 
 
Split Personality
1.2.4  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    2 months ago

During all the years of Whitewater investigations, who was convicted? bankers, Realtors, appraisors and associates.

the targets were the Clintons.

These were the victims.

  • Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, removed from office (fraud, 3 counts)
  • John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)
  • William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker's business partner (conspiracy)
  • Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
  • Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; U.S. Associate Attorney General; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
  • Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
  • Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
  • David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
  • Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
  • Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
  • Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
  • Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
  • John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
  • Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
  • Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)

See any parallels to Manafort, et al.?

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.4    2 months ago
See any parallels to Manafort, et al.?

I do.

That is the similar investigation (not Watergate). Are you saying you are against these types of investigations?

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.4    2 months ago
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds). Bill Clinton pardoned.

My God, I would hope so!  She was the epitome of loyalty.
There were so many loyal to the Clintons, weren't there?

 
 
Split Personality
1.2.7  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.5    2 months ago
Are you saying you are against these types of investigations?

Not at all, but for all of the gnashing of teeth of Trump's defenders, there is little historical data, other than Nixon, that these investigations bear the intended fruit.

 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.8  XDm9mm  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    2 months ago

It's a sham designed for nothing more than hoping to use Manafort against Trump as Mueller has NOTHING and will have NOTHING.

An interesting ploy which was exposed by Muellers own witness as to how Mueller and his henchmen work is using Gates as a witness only after threatening a couple of hundred years behind bars.... BUT...  if you testify against Manafort, you'll get probation and won't be bled dry financially defending yourself.

It's the same tactic they used against Flynn to get him to plead guilty.   They were destroying him financially, and then they threatened his son.   They don't have to prove anything to bankrupt you and make your life a living hell.....   they just have to have the desire.

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.8    2 months ago
It's a sham designed for nothing more than hoping to use Manafort against Trump as Mueller has NOTHING and will have NOTHING.

Exactly!!

They don't have to prove anything to bankrupt you and make your life a living hell.....   they just have to have the desire.

Yup, charge em with something and let em pay to defend themselves

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.7    2 months ago

And in the case of Nixon it was right there from the get go!  You have the "break-in" with x-CIA guys, the FBI informant (deep throat) who knew it all and finally the testimony of John Dean. All of which rapidly implicated the paranoid, insecure President who had just won a land-slide victory. There was the case that didn't even need an independent investigation. It all came tumbling down regardless of the timing of the investigation.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.11  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.8    2 months ago
It's a sham designed for nothing more than hoping to use Manafort against Trump as Mueller has NOTHING and will have NOTHING.

And, you know this how? Do you have access to Mueller's files and, records? If you do, how about sharing them.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.12  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.10    2 months ago
There was the case that didn't even need an independent investigation. It all came tumbling down regardless of the timing of the investigation.

LOL, it seems like you keep making mistakes and, or, assumptions, not in evidence.

June 17, 1972
Five men are arrested while trying to bug the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters at the Watergate, a hotel and office building in Washington, D.C. A day later, White House press secretary Ronald Ziegler famously called the Watergate break-in a “third-rate burglary.” At a press conference June 22, President Nixon denied that the White House was involved in the incident.
Aug. 1, 1972
The Washington Post reported that a $25,000 check intended for Nixon’s 1972 reelection campaign was deposited in the bank account of one of the Watergate burglars. It was one of the first developments linking the DNC break-in to Nixon’s campaign.
Oct. 10, 1972
The Post reports the FBI had concluded the Watergate break-in was part of a broader spying effort connected to Nixon’s campaign. News of the FBI’s findings came two weeks after the Post reported that former Attorney General John Mitchell, who stepped down earlier that year, had controlled a secret fund that paid for spying on the Democratic Party.
Jan. 8, 1973
The trial for the Watergate break-in begins.
Jan. 30, 1973
G. Gordon Liddy, a former Nixon aide, and James McCord, a one-time Nixon aide and former CIA operative, are convicted for their role in spearheading the Watergate break-in.
April 30, 1973
The scandal reaches the White House, as senior White House aides H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman resign over Watergate. Attorney General Richard Kleindienst also resigns, and John Dean, the White House counsel, gets fired.
May 18, 1973
Attorney General Elliot Richardson appoints Archibald Cox as special prosecutor to lead the investigation into Nixon’s reelection campaign and Watergate. Cox was a respected attorney and law professor, and had served as the United States solicitor general under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/complete-watergate-timeline-took-longer-realize

What does that say in the enlarged part that I put in red? Oh, it says there was a special prosecutor appointed.

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.13  Vic Eldred  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.12    2 months ago
What does that say in the enlarged part that I put in red? Oh, it says there was a special prosecutor appointed.

Lol, did I ever say there wasn't ??????

I'm not going to repeat my point. Go back and read what I said!!!

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.14  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.13    2 months ago
Lol, did I ever say there wasn't ??????I'm not going to repeat my point. Go back and read what I said!!!

I did and, I'm still missing what the hell you are talking about. Mueller was appointed by the DOJ so, are you talking about the Nunes investigation which of course went no where because, Nunes was and, is in the pocket of the president, or, the Senate investigation which like Mueller's is going on?

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.15  Vic Eldred  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.14    2 months ago

First, saying that the Watergate break-in was such an obvious crime, which didn't even require a special independent investigation, dosen't mean I am not acknowledging that there was one!  I don't get how somebody could come to that conclusion.

Second, the Washington Post was being spoon fed all the facts by someone over at (guess where!) the FBI. All of the people indicted in the case were directly related to it. Finally you had the damning testimony of John Dean (White House Counsel), who all but gave up his own mother.

It was about as different from the Mueller investigation as any two cases could be with the possible exception of the inherent media bias which was obvious in both.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.16  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.15    2 months ago
It was about as different from the Mueller investigation as any two cases could be with the possible exception of the inherent media bias which was obvious in both.

Did you ever watch "All the Presidents Men"? If you had you would know that Woodward and, Bernstein were considered Journalism up starts, they were young and, hadn't had much experience with national news or, politics at that time, the Post was the only news media carrying the story which involved the  White House end of it, the rest were saying it was a bungled break in, it was the Post that put its reputation on the line.

So, what's different now?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.17  Vic Eldred  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.16    2 months ago
Did you ever watch "All the Presidents Men"?

Um-hum.

If you had you would know that Woodward and, Bernstein were considered Journalism up starts, they were young and, hadn't had much experience with national news or, politics at that time, the Post was the only news media carrying the story which involved the  White House end of it, the rest were saying it was a bungled break in, it was the Post that put its reputation on the line.

I didn't need the movie to know that Woodward & Bernstein were getting all the info from Mark Felt ("deep throat"), the number 2 man at the FBI who leaked it to them. It wasn't if they were great investigative journalists. They did all of the coverage, however to my main point, the rest of the media hated Richard M Nixon! BTW, Felt was convicted later of authorizing break-ins & searches without warrants:

"The jury returned guilty verdicts on November 6, 1980. Although the charge carried a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, Felt was fined $5,000 and Miller was fined $3,500."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Felt#Contact_with_Woodward

Funny how punishment is administered in this country, isn't it?

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.18  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.17    2 months ago
They did all of the coverage, however to my main point, the rest of the media hated Richard M Nixon!

I don't think the media hated Nixon, it was the time of the Vietnam War and, peace protests, the Pentagon Papers were made public and, the world knew what was done to start and, keep the war going in Vietnam and, they weren't happy about it, Nixon was a convenient scapegoat and, the media knew it. Where Nixon screwed up was trying to cover things up and, breaking into the DNC HQ at the Watergate complex, if he hadn't done those things, things might have been different for him but, it was his mistake and, it cost him his reputation and, the presidency.

What we are seeing now is possibly a repeat of what happened with Nixon except for one difference, Russia is involved in it and, that makes it possible treason as well as all the other crimes committed in the name of electing Trump president.

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.19  Vic Eldred  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.18    2 months ago
What we are seeing now is possibly a repeat of what happened with Nixon except for one difference


No, we are not!  We are seeing a repeat of what happened with Bill Clinton, except that Trump has yet to lie to prosecutors or obstruct the investigation AS CLINTON DID

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.20  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.19    2 months ago
No, we are not!  We are seeing a repeat of what happened with Bill Clinton, except that Trump has yet to lie to prosecutors or obstruct the investigation AS CLINTON DID

And, Nixon I guess now, in Alt-Right minds and, history never tried to obstruct justice or, lied to anyone I suppose?

 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.21  Jack_TX  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.20    2 months ago

I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one am simply glad to see the comparisons of Trump change to Nixon or Clinton....which are realistic...as opposed to Hitler....which was utterly preposterous stupidity.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.22  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.21    2 months ago
I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one am simply glad to see the comparisons of Trump change to Nixon or Clinton....which are realistic...as opposed to Hitler....which was utterly preposterous stupidity.

Don't get me wrong, I think Trump is a racist, I also think that he is following a lot of what Hitler did to take over and, make himself a dictator, I hope to hell I'm wrong. As far as what is going on with the Mueller probe, I do see more similarity's to Nixon than Clinton though.

 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.23  Jack_TX  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.22    2 months ago
Don't get me wrong, I think Trump is a racist,

Meh.  I just don't think he gives a shit about race and he despises "political correctness", which is enough to be seen as racist by people for whom it is a primary driver.  I do think he attracts racists like a picnic attracts flies, and I agree that's problematic for the office he holds.

I also think that he is following a lot of what Hitler did to take over and, make himself a dictator,

No.  Just no.  Not even close.  This is the liberal version of "Obama is a Muslim socialist who wants to enact Sharia Law".   It's just crazy, and shows a remarkable lack of understanding of both situations.

I hope to hell I'm wrong.

Rest easy.  You are.  Trump is the conservative version of Bernie Sanders.  That playbook basically goes..."spout every manner of nonsensical garbage you can imagine that your base would want to hear."

The real concern now is the backlash going overboard.  Historically, liberals don't tend to police each other very well.  They don't like to hurt each other's feelings, so they don't tend to tell each other "that's a stupid idea"...even when they all know it's a stupid idea.  So combine that with a strong emotion that "Trump = bad" and the more problematic and dangerous "not Trump = good", and you have a recipe for some very bad potential decisions. 

Like you, I hope I'm wrong.

As far as what is going on with the Mueller probe, I do see more similarity's to Nixon than Clinton though.

Absolutely.  Personally, I think that if Trump had colluded with Russia, it would have been proven by now.  He's just not smart enough to hide it that well. 

That said, I fully support continuing the investigation to its end.  Trump's objections to it are very similar to Clinton's in the 1990s, BTW.  I'm sure both men found/find it frustrating, but tough shit...that's part of the job.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.24  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.23    2 months ago
The real concern now is the backlash going overboard.  Historically, liberals don't tend to police each other very well.  They don't like to hurt each other's feelings, so they don't tend to tell each other "that's a stupid idea"...even when they all know it's a stupid idea.  So combine that with a strong emotion that "Trump = bad" and the more problematic and dangerous "not Trump = good", and you have a recipe for some very bad potential decisions

The same can be said for the Republicans in Congress, Trump does something stupid, like meeting with Putin and, not planning or, getting any good advice before hand, he meets with Kim and, basically hands him South Korea on a platter, what goes on in Congress, lot's of words, no action.

 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.25  Jack_TX  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.24    2 months ago
The same can be said for the Republicans in Congress,

To a certain extent, yeah, I would agree with that.

Trump does something stupid, like meeting with Putin and, not planning or, getting any good advice before hand, he meets with Kim and, basically hands him South Korea on a platter, what goes on in Congress, lot's of words, no action.

I don't care who he meets with.  Meetings are fine.  Meetings keep politicians from actually doing things.  No action is fine.  I love no action.  Action is what we need to worry about.  So far the only serious action from the Trump presidency is a big tax cut.  We didn't really need it, but it's not the end of the world, either.

IMO people get far to wrapped up in what gets said, and pay far too little attention to what gets done.  Always remember that when all is said and done, more will be said than done, so "cautious optimism" or "mild concern" seem to be the prudent stances.

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.26  Vic Eldred  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.20    2 months ago

Nixon was guilty as charged and he has no defenders. It was much different for Bill Clinton, wasn't it?

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.27  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.26    2 months ago
Nixon was guilty as charged and he has no defenders. It was much different for Bill Clinton, wasn't it?

In the case of Clinton it went from "He's guilty as sin for White Water" to "He got a blowjob in the Oval Office, OH MY GOD" while Newt, the Speaker of the House was boinking his secretary.

 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.28  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.26    2 months ago
Nixon was guilty as charged and he has no defenders.

He did. My parents and their siblings all said that Nixon didn't do anything that all the other presidents hadn't done. He had lots of defenders at the time

 
 
Sunshine
1.3  Sunshine  replied to  ghostly bear @1    2 months ago
There is no checks and balances on a rogue criminal justice that will bankrupt you.

You are getting crap for spelling errors.  lol, you must be hitting nerves.  Obviously you know how to spell rogue correctly, but some just have to get their panties in a bunch.

Mueller has carte blanche and all that can be done is to ride it out.  People have already tired from the nonsense.  Someday the TDS crowd will figure it out.

 
 
Trout Giggles
1.3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sunshine @1.3    2 months ago

Please....look at the body of his seed.

And no, I don't have my panties in a bunch. If you want to say something to me, be a woman and say it, don't fucking pussy foot around. Otherwise, don't reference anything I say.

 
 
Sunshine
1.3.2  Sunshine  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.3.1    2 months ago

I can say whatever I want to anyone.  

Except that....Removed

 
 
Trout Giggles
1.3.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sunshine @1.3.2    2 months ago

Just have the spine to actually address the person you are referencing instead of speaking around them. That's rude and passive-agressive...which got me yelled at by Bruce.

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sunshine @1.3    2 months ago
You are getting crap for spelling errors.  lol, you must be hitting nerves.  Obviously you know how to spell rogue correctly, but some just have to get their panties in a bunch.

Very good point!  It happens too much here. Spelling errors have nothing to do with the validity of his argument.

 
 
Split Personality
1.3.5  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.4    2 months ago

I don't know about that.

Rouge vs rouge?

There, their and they're?

 I get pretty tired of it myself........

 
 
Skrekk
1.3.6  Skrekk  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.4    2 months ago
Spelling errors have nothing to do with the validity of his argument.

I agree.   It was a moronic argument even without the errors.

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @1.3.5    2 months ago

I'm interested in valid arguments. The people who make an issue out of spelling and grammar usually have a weak argument and are looking to dismiss an opposing view.

I like to think of it as tactic #9 at UC Berkeley

 
 
Split Personality
1.3.8  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.7    2 months ago

We =freekwentltly thnk of it as a tctic, for sure.

A few regulr posters feign usage of cel phone autocorrect for their sbysmal spellang and lck of Englsh gramar\

I don'y

by it...........knot at all....some times it seams as if they are just trying to avoid the dread "tickets".

If you post here and expect to be taken seriously

the means have been provided to

point out the obvious spelling errors

and 10 minutes to proof "reed' and correct the obvious errors.

With all of the time some of you take to split hair and molecules,

spelling and grammar should'n be a difficult 'chore'.

 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.3.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Split Personality @1.3.8    2 months ago

might u possibly elaborate on such a vicious butchering of a completely so easily comprehended misinterpretation 

of an actual dire situation

where as a language so completely specific about each and every words intention, spanned by a traversing VS investing of all about a face 

that so many appear afraid to imagine from an imaginative nation, that has witnessed a Trump sized tremendous abortion of the Buy American VIA N E N all a corporation ,

means

Tha benevolently shared well intentioned,

so unworthy of a mention,

cause  dissection  of our once so grand standing above all else experiment, known as the United States of America

is flailing and failing when critical thought is

evidently , beyond the mental midget capacity of a brain washed loss of minds, tossed a way.

as if the taking of responsibility, 

has no place in our “it HAS’d to be another’s Fault, so what so ciety

that allows minions with asz whole hearted uneducated opinions , to ever dare , to telll the truth, about how CRITICAL, our Thinking drought , has evaporated, the mentality that came about, when ignorance became

know longer

a short lived expiration date

that has long ago been blindly missed by those whose intention was Never to see what the herd could expressly tout while carrying such a LOAD that bears a wall, keeping the TRUTH OUT

what ?

there is such an animal known as spell check

id pay to bounce it

off

a wetter dryer sheet of forged lint lent to whom 

on every worthless American, where as such an amassed total of monetary capitol invaluable tiny letter and $0 spent, B comes just another useless $ misspent on an education that has some how, mismanaged Billions to achieve management over opinions that are not worthy of the whole # of asses , that might be required to achieve the stupi fckn cation of one ignorant nation too simply critical

to nurse back to health when it comes to a a situation

where it be such many R apparently 

unable to not think

of the critically intensive care required, to be critical about how

ones, who have  so much to, and would/could possibly lose and be denied,

remain,

convinced it’s all one big lie construed to stir the stew jesters

just,

to ,

without refute ,

disenfranchise 

, a destabilized corporation , 

formerly known as our nation

is there a bottom to stop our dissent into this swamp ?

cause far too many are still unable to touch a feeling

as numbs the word

shh 

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @1.3.8    2 months ago

Of course you are exaggerating the seeder's mistakes. I have two problems with that. One is that it takes away from his argument. (I already pointed that out, didn't I?). The other problem is that when you make such an issue out of it, you needlessly embarrass the individual. There are other ways to handle it, especially for someone given the responsibility of being a moderator. 

When I originally read this article, I immediately decided to comment on it. I did it to promote the seeder's argument. There is now a discussion. Mission accomplished! Nice talk.

 
 
Trout Giggles
1.3.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.7    2 months ago

What is so hard about using the right gd term for something?

There is a difference between rouge and rogue

 
 
lennylynx
2  lennylynx    2 months ago

I'm not sure how much of a problem we have with rouge prosecutors, Mr. Bear, but we definitely have a problem with an orange president! 

 
 
WallyW
2.1  WallyW  replied to  lennylynx @2    2 months ago

No...you, and your fellow left wingers have a problem with Trump, and that's the truth as Edith Ann would say.

 
 
Trout Giggles
3  Trout Giggles    2 months ago

Point of contention here because it happens way too often.

"Rouge" is that stuff women put on their cheeks to look pretty

"Rogue" means:

Definition of rogue

1 : vagrant, tramp
2 : a dishonest or worthless person : scoundrel
3 : a mischievous person : scamp
4 : a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave
5 : an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation

link

Would you all kindly please start using the right word? I'm running out of Aleve.

Spelling Nazi Trout Giggles signing off

 
 
lennylynx
3.1  lennylynx  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    2 months ago

Pretty sad that anyone would say that about Robert Mueller, a war hero, and great, great Republican American, the very best the Republicans have to offer.  Our friendly neighborhood bear seems like a very nice person, and I'm sure he doesn't realize how horrible a thing he said about such a fine man.  Mueller is as far away from being rogue as a person can get; he's toed the line every single day of his incredibly honorable life.

 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  lennylynx @3.1    2 months ago

If Mueller were going after a democrat, the republicans would be building a shrine to him

 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.1    2 months ago

wait a minute

where the Hell IS THE BAR ?

I'm lost , asz usual

 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.2    2 months ago

Go down the block and turn left

 
 
lennylynx
3.1.4  lennylynx  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.2    2 months ago

I just got off work for the weekend and will be in the bar pretty damn soon myself!  Let's go, Iggy, I'm buyin.'  Happy

 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  lennylynx @3.1.4    2 months ago

Woo Hoo! I finally found somebody other than Mr Giggles who will buy my beer!

 
 
WallyW
3.1.6  WallyW  replied to  lennylynx @3.1    2 months ago

And when he clears Trump of all wrong doing, I bet your opinion of him will change.

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
3.1.7  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  lennylynx @3.1.4    2 months ago

I always sober up before driving with a Pablo Latte

 
 
Sunshine
3.1.8  Sunshine  replied to  WallyW @3.1.6    2 months ago
And when he clears Trump of all wrong doing, I bet your opinion of him will change.

yeah...same thing they did with James Comey.  First he was a hero and then not so much.....

 
 
Skrekk
3.1.9  Skrekk  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.8    2 months ago
First he was a hero and then not so much.....

Damn libruls seem to judge people based on what they do!    Why can't they just decide that a person is good or bad and stick with that decision no matter what they do in the future?

 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.10  igknorantzrulz  replied to  lennylynx @3.1.4    2 months ago

be a lot of fun, getting flagged with you n Trout

 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.11  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.8    2 months ago
James Comey.  First he was a hero and then not so much.....

to which party ...?

 
 
lennylynx
3.1.12  lennylynx  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.5    2 months ago

Hey, I only said I was buying for Iggy, but, what the hell! 

"Don't worry about tomorrow, take it today

Forget about the chips, we'll get hell to pay

Have a drink on me."

My fave ACDC line.

 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  lennylynx @3.1.12    2 months ago

Oh....I thought....

never mind. I'll bring my wallet

 
 
Ender
3.1.14  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.13    2 months ago

Don't think about it, I got ya covered.

 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.15  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @3.1.14    2 months ago

Aww...my new best good friend

 
 
JBB
3.2  JBB  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    2 months ago
Spelling Nazi Trout Giggles signing off

You weren't being a classical spelling Nazi. What we're dealing with here is a whole different thang than that...

Normally I don't find illiteracy, feigned or otherwise, a funny subject. I cannot help feeling a bit, um, bemused.

 
 
Skrekk
4  Skrekk    2 months ago
rouge prosecutors

Is that you, Sarah?

.

Manaford looking at 300 years were the average person only gets 1.5 years.

Hmmmm......sounds like "Manaford" committed a number of felonies.

 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Skrekk @4    2 months ago

man, can't afford

 
 
charger 383
5  charger 383    2 months ago

Bar Association is just a union for lawyers

 
 
Ender
6  Ender    2 months ago

Ok, so all criminal wrong doing should be cast aside because some think the reasons they came to light were unjustified.

Don't think it works that way.

 
 
livefreeordie
7  livefreeordie    2 months ago

The enforcement arms of the Federal Government are the real threat to our liberties, businesses, or religious freedoms.  Far more than external threats,  statists in both parties use the criminal enforcers, the FBI, IRS, DOJ, and ATF along with our intelligence agencies to control Americans and punish political enemies.  There is little actual crime fighting by these agencies. Instead they function more like old Stalinist agencies

until recently this was always the view shared by the left with libertarians

 
 
Skrekk
7.1  Skrekk  replied to  livefreeordie @7    2 months ago

I know, right?   And who said that tax fraud and money laundering were illegal anyway?

 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Skrekk @7.1    2 months ago

Great question.

We recently learned that Mueller's star witness in this trial (Rick Gates) had been stealing from Manafort to fund one of his affairs.  

If i'm sitting on that jury, I'm saying to myself "two slime balls", yet wondering why one is facing 300 years and the other ZERO?

 
 
Skrekk
7.1.2  Skrekk  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.1    2 months ago
If i'm sitting on that jury, I'm saying to myself "two slime balls", yet wondering why one is facing 300 years and the other ZERO?

That's how cooperating witnesses work - they exchange truthful testimony for a sentence reduction and the two things hanging over their head are their continued cooperation and that the testimony must be truthful.

Heck, even a dimwit like Giuliani was able to convict mobsters based on the testimony of other mobsters and they didn't have nearly the long paper trail which Manafort has.

 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Skrekk @7.1.2    2 months ago

We know how it works.
The real question was why is Manafort so different than Gates. The answer, of course, is that Marafort briefly managed the Trump Campaign

 
 
Split Personality
7.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.3    2 months ago

And Gates stayed on and was part of the Trump transition team. So what else does he know or has he shared?

In June 2016, when Donald Trump promoted Manafort to the post of campaign manager, Gates went to work for and became the campaign's number two, handling the day-to-day activities of the campaign including taking responsibility for apparent plagiarism in Melania Trump's speech at the Republican National Convention. Gates stayed on as number two in the campaign under Steve Bannon after Manafort was forced out, and then went to work as deputy chairman of the Donald Trump Inaugural Committee. He helped to form a pro-Trump nonprofit group called America First Policies but was removed from the organization after his involvement with Manafort's overseas ventures was exposedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Gates_(political_consultant)

hmmmm, he's still going to be a felon and he's still going to be barred from doing any banking or dealing with the SEC unless he ends up in the witness protection program

Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska has sued Paul Manafort and Rick Gates for more than $25 million in damages over business deals involving his companies. The complaint filed in a New York state court in 2018 alleges that Manafort and Gates bilked his companies out of millions of dollars given to them to invest.[31] The lawsuit relies, in part, on allegations that were outlined in special counsel Robert Mueller's indictments against Manafort and Gates. Deripaska has also made similar claims in previous legal complaints filed against Manafort and Gates in the Cayman Islands in 2014 and in a Virginia state court in 2015 accusing Manafort and Gates of taking $19 million intended for investment then failing to account for the funds or return them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Gates_(political_consultant)

 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.4    2 months ago
And Gates stayed on and was part of the Trump transition team. So what else does he know or has he shared?

Thanks for your candor, we may actually be in agreement. The honorable Judge Ellis said it best: "You are not interested in Mr Manafort's bank fraud, your'e really interested in Manafort because of his potential to provide material that would lead to Trump's "prosecution or impeachment."

hmmmm, he's still going to be a felon and he's still going to be barred from doing any banking or dealing with the SEC unless he ends up in the witness protection program

Big deal. Punishment's should fit crimes. In this case neither appears to be right. These are not the typical penalties given out for these "deep state" (ya, these guys represent the swamp) crimes. It's all about getting Trump. If I was on that jury, I'd give em what the Simpson Jury gave em!

BTW, some may not accept the link to Wikipedia. I'll accept it.

 
 
Split Personality
7.1.6  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.5    2 months ago
BTW, some may not accept the link to Wikipedia. I'll accept it.

It's easier than putting up dozens of biased news links ( in either direction )

Bottom line. Manafort doesn't think he will go to jail.  He's trolling for the best leverage

and somewhere in Montana or ND he and Rick will get a small Federal Savings bank to play with in their 'golden years'.......under new identities.

It's happened before....

 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.6    2 months ago
Bottom line. Manafort doesn't think he will go to jail. 

He dosen't ???  Even if he gets by in Virginia (which I doubt), the DC Court, coming next, is waiting to convict!!!

Iv'e said it before and I'll say it again, when (or should I say if ever) the Mueller investigation ends, The President should then fire Rod Rosenstein and pardon Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort.

 
 
Skrekk
7.1.8  Skrekk  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.3    2 months ago
The real question was why is Manafort so different than Gates.

The answer of course is that Gates agreed to testify for the prosecution but Manafort refused.   I suspect Manafort will regret that choice.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.1.9  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.7    2 months ago
Iv'e said it before and I'll say it again, when (or should I say if ever) the Mueller investigation ends, The President should then fire Rod Rosenstein and pardon Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort.

I don't think you're going to get the results you're hoping for.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.1.10  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.1    2 months ago
We recently learned that Mueller's star witness in this trial (Rick Gates) had been stealing from Manafort to fund one of his affairs.  If i'm sitting on that jury, I'm saying to myself "two slime balls", yet wondering why one is facing 300 years and the other ZERO?

Good question, with a really good answer, Gates agreed to cooperate with Mueller and, the court in Virginia for a reduced sentence, with one exception, he must tell the whole truth on the stand, if he lies or, leaves anything out he is looking at a hundred years, Gates words, in prison. I don't know about you but, if I were Gates I'd tell them if I had athletes foot if they asked with that hanging over my head.

 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  Skrekk @7.1.8    2 months ago
The answer of course is that Gates agreed to testify for the prosecution but Manafort refused.

Manafort refused to testify against whom?  Who is at the center of this, Manafort or Gates?  What about the 8 other witnesses the prosecution has?

 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.1.10    2 months ago
Gates agreed to cooperate w

Was his cooperation needed that badly? They have 8 other witnesses ready to testify. What about Tony Podesta? Why was he also offered immunity to testify against Manafort?

It would seem that there is an overkill when it comes to nailing Manafort, while others who are guilty of the same things are being granted immunity. It's not really about bank fraud is it?  It's about a broke Manafort running the Trump campaign for a few months. Whatever they want Manafort for these other people can't help with. With all the e-mails and documents they have from Manafort (which I believe is everything), they still think Manafort and Manafort alone has something they want. SOMETHING THEY OBVIOUSLY DON"T HAVE!

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.1.13  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.12    2 months ago
It would seem that there is an overkill when it comes to nailing Manafort, while others who are guilty of the same things are being granted immunity. It's not really about bank fraud is it?  It's about a broke Manafort running the Trump campaign for a few months. Whatever they want Manafort for these other people can't help with. With all the e-mails and documents they have from Manafort (which I believe is everything), they still think Manafort and Manafort alone has something they want. SOMETHING THEY OBVIOUSLY DON"T HAVE!

You seem to have this backwards, it's Gates who is desperate, not Mueller or, the U.S. court in Virginia, Gates, according to his own testimony was looking at 100 years in prison if he didn't testify against Manafort and, tell the truth during his testimony, Manafort according to the testimony of the witness's against him isn't as broke as he likes people to believe and, he didn't actually work for Trump for free. Yes, he didn't take a salary or, money from Trump himself but, he did sell favors while working as a campaign manager for Trump.

 
 
MUVA
7.1.14  MUVA  replied to  Skrekk @7.1.2    2 months ago

You usually don't get off with out jail time only in the movies or mob cases.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.1.15  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  MUVA @7.1.14    2 months ago
You usually don't get off with out jail time only in the movies or mob cases.

Who said that anyone isn't getting some kind of penalty in this? The lady who prepared Manafort's taxes lost her job over this and, I'm sure Gates isn't skating totally free either.  

 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.16  Vic Eldred  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.1.13    2 months ago
Yes, he didn't take a salary or, money from Trump himself but, he did sell favors while working as a campaign manager for Trump.

And that is the avenue Mueller is working on, hoping he can ensnare the President. We know all about Mueller here in Boston.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.1.18  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.16    2 months ago
And that is the avenue Mueller is working on, hoping he can ensnare the President.

I know that is the hope of the Left and, some moderate Democrats, hell, even I have some hope there but, mine comes from the actions of Trump more than from just hope or, thinking that Mueller is working for some "Deep State" thing. The difference I see with Mueller is that he is first and, foremost a prosecutor, a lawyer, he deals in facts laid out in evidence, not in supposition like folks here on NT so, I say wait and, see what he comes up with. I doubt seriously that Mueller is looking to "ensnare" Trump or, to "catch him in a perjury trap", if anything he is making sure that every t is crossed and, every I is dotted, Trump on the other hand is using the media to try to discredit Mueller, that is a defense tactic that is used when the lawyers for the defendant know that their client is guilty. The question is, what is Trump guilty of in this case?

 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.19  XDm9mm  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.1.18    2 months ago

If Mueller was not trying to trap Trump in some perjury bullshit, he would provide exactly what he has to the Congress or to the DoJ for prosecution.  No prosecutor, with a valid provable case will 'interview' the 'suspect', he would just make the charges and let the jury decide.  

Don't forget, a prosecutor will not ask a question he/she does not already know the answer to, especially if they have little if anything else of substance to prosecute.  Prosecutors don't like to lose.

 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.20  Vic Eldred  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.1.18    2 months ago
he difference I see with Mueller is that he is first and, foremost a prosecutor, a lawyer, he deals in facts laid out in evidence, not in supposition like folks here on NT so, I say wait and, see what he comes up with. I doubt seriously that Mueller is looking to "ensnare" Trump or, to "catch him in a perjury trap", if anything he is making sure that every t is crossed and, every I is dotted,

I'm wondering if you are going to feel that way if/when Mueller exonerates Trump ("there being no there there").

Beyond that, let me tell you about the Robert Mueller we know up here in Boston:

"Back in the 1980s, when he was serving on the Massachusetts parole board, Albano expressed some sympathy for a group of men who had always maintained they had been framed for the 1965 gangland murder of a hoodlum named Teddy Deegan in Chelsea. The FBI had been instrumental in seeing that the men - Peter Limone, Henry Tameleo, Joe Salvati, and Louis Greco - were convicted. The FBI contended that Tameleo was the consigliere of the Mafia in Boston, and that Limone was a Mafia leader. There is no question that both men were bad actors, and Mafia players, but the evidence showed that neither had anything to do Deegan’s murder.

So in 1983, after Albano indicated he might vote to release Limone, he got a visit from a pair of FBI agents named John Connolly and John Morris. They told Albano that the men convicted of Deegan’s murder were bad guys, made guys.

“They told me that if I wanted to stay in public life, I shouldn’t vote to release a guy like Limone,’’ Albano said. “They intimidated me.’’

Turns out that Connolly was Whitey Bulger’s corrupt handler and Morris was Connolly’s corrupt supervisor. When they weren’t pocketing bribes from Bulger, they were helping him murder potential witnesses who were poised to expose the FBI’s sordid, Faustian deal with the rat named Whitey Bulger.

Albano was messing with the FBI’s national policy of going after the Mafia and the Mafia alone. That was the justification the FBI gave for making deals with devils like Whitey Bulger and his partner in crime, Stevie Flemmi. They were supposedly giving up their pals in the Mafia. The problem with the FBI’s national policy is that it didn’t take into account that the most vicious, murderous gangsters in Boston were Whitey Bulger and Stevie Flemmi.

After Albano was elected mayor of Springfield in 1995, he soon found the FBI hot on his tail, investigating his administration for corruption. The FBI took down several people in his administration, and Albano is convinced that the FBI wasn’t interested in public integrity as much as in publicly humiliating him because he dared to defy them.

In 2001, the four men convicted of Teddy Deegan’s murder were exonerated. Turned out the FBI let them take the rap to protect one of their informants, a killer named Vincent “Jimmy’’ Flemmi, who just happened to be the brother of their other rat, Stevie Flemmi. Thanks to the FBI’s corruption, taxpayers got stuck with the $100 million bill for compensating the framed men, two of whom, Greco and Tameleo, died in prison.

Albano was appalled that, later that same year, Mueller was appointed FBI director, because it was Mueller, first as an assistant US attorney then as the acting US attorney in Boston, who wrote letters to the parole and pardons board throughout the 1980s opposing clemency for the four men framed by FBI lies.

Of course, Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset.

“Before he gets that extension,’’ Mike Albano said, “somebody in the Senate or House needs to ask him why the US Attorney’s office he led let the FBI protect Whitey Bulger.’’

I called FBI headquarters in Washington and tried to do just that. The nice lady who answered suggested I talk to one of the FBI’s “public affairs specialists.’’ But my call was not returned.

Four years ago, when questioned about the FBI’s corruption in Boston, Mueller told the Globe, “I think the public should recognize that what happened, happened years ago.’’

That’s true. And we still don’t know what really happened.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/1970/01/19/one-lingering-question-for-fbi-director-robert-mueller/613uW0MR7czurRn7M4BG2J/amp.html


You see Robert Mueller was more interested in protecting FBI sources and the FBI's reputation than he was about four innocent men who were serving life sentences. (two of them died in prison btw)

 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.21  XDm9mm  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.20    2 months ago

And don't forget that pit bull Andrew Weissmann.   

He had a reputation for suppressing exculpatory evidence and intimidating people.   Hell, in one case, the JUDGE told the defendant that he was pleading guilty to a wire fraud crime that didn't exist.

After he totally destroyed Enron (not they were angels by any means) the SCOTUS overturned the conviction in a 9 to 0 ruling.....   now when 9 Justices agree on something, there has to be some glaring evidence supporting their decision.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.1.22  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.19    2 months ago
If Mueller was not trying to trap Trump in some perjury bullshit, he would provide exactly what he has to the Congress or to the DoJ for prosecution.

Why would Mueller give evidence to an elective body that is famous for not only releasing that evidence to the press but, taking it straight to the White House for Trumps lawyers to read? That would be like letting a mob boss read what the prosecutor is going to bring to trial when the time comes to take him to trial, that sounds like a dumb thing to do.

  No prosecutor, with a valid provable case will 'interview' the 'suspect', he would just make the charges and let the jury decide. 

LOL, maybe you should tell that to the prosecutors who have interviewed murderers and, rapists before charging them. 

Don't forget, a prosecutor will not ask a question he/she does not already know the answer to, especially if they have little if anything else of substance to prosecute.  Prosecutors don't like to lose.

Yep, and, that is why Manafort will spend the rest of his life in prison.

 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.23  XDm9mm  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.1.22    2 months ago
LOL, maybe you should tell that to the prosecutors who have interviewed murderers and, rapists before charging them. 

Actually, the PROSECUTORS take the evidence, including INTERVIEWS the POLICE conducted and present that to the Grand Jury if they opt to or they simply charge the individual.

Yep, and, that is why Manafort will spend the rest of his life in prison.

Wow....   so you've seen ALL of the evidence including the defense (which hasn't presented much yet) and in your infinite wisdom have already convicted the man.    That tells me more about you than ANYTHING you could ever post.   I guess in your world it's "Guilty until proved innocent." and fuck the Constitution.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.1.24  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.23    2 months ago
including the defense (which hasn't presented much yet)

Since most of the post I took this from is snark I'll deal with this. What the defense has put forth as "evidence" is to try to discredit the witness's the prosecutors have put forth and, have done a piss poor job of it.

 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.25  XDm9mm  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.1.24    2 months ago

They haven't provided evidence yet.

And unless you've had your head in the sand for your entire life....   EVERY lawyer does everything in his/her power and abilities to discredit the other sides witnesses.

But, what difference does it make?  YOU have already convicted the man regardless of any defense evidence being presented.

 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.26  Vic Eldred  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.21    2 months ago
He had a reputation for suppressing exculpatory evidence and intimidating people.

It is amazing he has't been disbarred, but then again there isn't any real ethics in being a lawyer. Rats could do a better job but it seems that being a lawyer is one step below the morality of a rodent.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.1.27  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.25    2 months ago
But, what difference does it make?  YOU have already convicted the man regardless of any defense evidence being presented.

Do you think I say that lightly? If you do then you really don't know me that well. The evidence against Manafort is strictly paper and, that paper doesn't lie, what it does is prove that Manafort laundered money, stole money and, committed bank fraud and, the evidence is substantial enough to put him away for many years, that's the sad part of this, this case was in the works long before Trump became president but, Manafort helped Trump and, then on top of that, it is said he committed more crimes, some of them might include espionage, if that is true then we have a whole new ballgame.

 
 
livefreeordie
7.2  livefreeordie  replied to  livefreeordie @7    2 months ago

“Partisan opinion on the FBI has shifted dramatically

The swing in opinion on the FBI isn’t confined to Capitol Hill. Over the past 15 years, Democratic and Republican voters’ views of the agency have veered in opposite directions. In 2003, Gallup asked respondents to rate the job being done by the FBI and found that 63 percent of Republicans said the agency was doing an “excellent” or “good” job, while only 44 percent of Democrats agreed. Last year, however, Gallup asked the same question and found that the tables had turned: Only 49 percent of Republicans said that the FBI was doing an “excellent” or “good” job, compared to 69 percent of Democrats.

“I can’t believe that I’ve lived to see liberal Democrats wholeheartedly embracing the FBI’s tactics,” said David Stebenne, a professor of American political and legal history at Ohio State University. “It’s really something when Democrats clearly perceive that the FBI is more credible and trustworthy than the president.”

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-democrats-and-republicans-did-a-sudden-180-on-the-fbi/

 
 
bbl-1
8  bbl-1    2 months ago

And the latest installment from the FSB.  Enjoy.

 
 
ghostly bear
9  author  ghostly bear    2 months ago

I enjoy all your comments good or bad . No matter what side your on. This is a case that's 13 years old. If my kid runs his bike into my car do I spank him or punish him 13 years from know. I know its not exactly the same thing just a thought.  There is no equal justice under the law. The left has created this mess and it seems the laws don't apply to Clinton. I would agree the only right thing to do is to pardon manaford and the reason is you cant manufacture evidence like the dossier to investigate some one than put someone on trial. Its fruit of the poisonous tree. If bad evidence leads to any other evidence even if its good it has to be thrown out to keep the justice system pure. Dont we have some celebrities like sharp ton that owes millions. Its amazing how prosecutor will exempt other crimes for testimony. Or use jail house snitch as the word of god. 

 
 
Skrekk
9.1  Skrekk  replied to  ghostly bear @9    2 months ago
The left has created this mess and it seems the laws don't apply to Clinton.

Removed

 
 
JBB
9.2  JBB  replied to  ghostly bear @9    2 months ago
This is a case that's 13 years old.

The testimony yesterday in Manafort's first trial involved that of a banker whom Manafort promised a high ranking prestigious position in Trump's formative administration in exchange for a $15,000,000.00 bank loan to Manafort way way back in 2016. Yes, our government's cases against Paul Manafort do go back thirteen years butt that is just shows how far back it all goes. It did not begin and end there. The case shows persistant criminal behavior over a long period of time ultimately ending in a criminal conspiracy with Vlad Putin to help elect Trump...

 
 
XDm9mm
9.2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @9.2    2 months ago

And there is verifiable PROOF of this claim where exactly?

If pressured by a prosecutor to say something or go to jail, I'll even say Clinton would have been a good President.  See how that works?

 
 
JBB
9.2.2  JBB  replied to  XDm9mm @9.2.1    2 months ago

Clinton has not held public office for nearly 6 years, been investigated to death and no criminal behavior was ever found. This is not about Clinton's e-mails as SofS anyway. This is about the Russians hacking her campaign to help trump win the presidency in exchange for not enforcing sanctions against Putin and his oligarch buddies. We shouldn't derail to Clinton who was just one victim of Manafort's conspiracies...

 
 
JBB
9.2.3  JBB  replied to  XDm9mm @9.2.1    2 months ago
And there is verifiable PROOF of this claim where exactly?

Please do not ask me again to retrieve public information for you. The evidence is being shown to the jurors in Manafort's ongoing first trial right now. It is public information if you just google it...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-19/here-s-the-evidence-mueller-will-show-to-paul-manafort-jurors

 
 
MUVA
9.2.4  MUVA  replied to  JBB @9.2.3    2 months ago

It is Sunday his trail is not going on right now.

 
 
MUVA
9.2.5  MUVA  replied to  JBB @9.2.2    2 months ago

HA ha ha a victim ha ha a victim really.

 
 
XDm9mm
9.2.6  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @9.2.3    2 months ago
The testimony yesterday in Manafort's first trial involved that of a banker whom Manafort promised a high ranking prestigious position in Trump's formative administration in exchange for a $15,000,000.00 bank loan to Manafort way way back in2016.

What he CLAIMED in testimony is NOT//NOT PROOF.   It is simply something that has been presented as evidence by an individual trying to keep his own ass out of jail.  In other words what has been presented is a "he said/she said" type of situation with NO PROOF.

As I stated earlier, if Mueller and company threaten someone with jail for their own deeds but will forego that jail time in exchange for testimony, it puts the 'testimony' itself in question as the mutterings of a person desperate to stay out of jail.

 
 
ghostly bear
9.2.7  author  ghostly bear  replied to  JBB @9.2.2    2 months ago

Justice don't apply to Clintion a navy sailor got a year behind bars for taking pictures of inside his sub he was proud of. Laws dont apply to Clintions when you have the fox guarding the chicken coup 

 
 
lennylynx
10  lennylynx    2 months ago
"It seems the laws don't apply to Clinton."

stunned  Happy Saturday Mr. Bear...

 
 
ghostly bear
11  author  ghostly bear    2 months ago

tada

 
 
ghostly bear
12  author  ghostly bear    2 months ago

its also sad the average person cant run for office or will ever participate in our democracy

 
 
Motherlessgoat
13  Motherlessgoat    2 months ago

Yeah, where IS the American Bar Association?

Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, legal counsel to the President, given a national syndicated radio platform to spread lies and suspicion about a Federal investigation - an investigation that, according to both client and attorneys, does NOT touch the White House - all for the rabid consumption of the court of public opinion.

About as far away from professional conduct as constantly tweeting out silly, grade school playground taunts.

 
 
ghostly bear
14  author  ghostly bear    2 months ago

Mark my words if manaford found guilty it all be thrown out in the end. I was thinking if gates was facing a 100 years and prosecutor offered him a sweet deal to stay out of prison. Wouldn't he say what ever the prosecutor wanted to save his own ass. How is one crime better than the other. It will all be thrown out because this all stemmed from a witch hunt that Strok started and was fired from. 

 
 
ghostly bear
15  author  ghostly bear    2 months ago

The justice system needs overhauled. It will bankrupt you if you fight it. It destroys lives. When you have a prosecutor with a 99 percent conviction rate. Its like suddom Hussein with a 99 percent election. They manufacture evidence, threaten you, Lie and use trickery for a conviction, but you better be honest so they can twist your words against you. 

 
 
ghostly bear
16  author  ghostly bear    4 weeks ago

Why does fbi get a pass for trying to take down the goverment. A regular person been thrown in jail for lying to a judge  and beens searched and conficated of all property. But nothing happened over fisa fraud. Nothing happened to strok but fired. No searching of his private property. Seems like the same rules dont apply to the fbi as they would to a normal person

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

It Is ME
Sparty On
Misty Mountain
321steve
Phoenyx13
Ed-NavDoc
Dismayed Patriot
Dulay
Dean Moriarty
Tacos!

PJ
arkpdx
zuksam


54 visitors